Is the global temperature now falling?

Probably not. And yet global warming skeptics are making much of a cool January around the globe, (see, for example, here).

Meteorologist Anthony Watts has gone a step further, compiling graphics of four different indices that put January’s cool spell into perspective. For example, here’s his graphic using data from the United Kingdom’s Hadley Climate Research Unit:

What are we to make of this? First of all, Brr!

One month, alas, is not at all a trend. However, the temperatures have remained relatively flat since 1998, and it is plausible — however unlikely if you, as do I, accept the IPCC consensus — that some other forcing may now be driving global temperatures down.

Far more likely is that this is an aberration in the current upward trend. But it is an intriguing anomaly all the same.

198 Responses

Just like the NR report this morning about how the Gulf Coast is going to suffer *if* the water level rises 4′, this infrastructure report IANVS is trumpeting is just an iteration of the SF genre of post-apocalypse fantasy.

The humorous part of the NPR spam was how the Nat. Geo. Survey bureaucrat was so blithely talking about more intense storms and the rapidly melting ice- on top of her 4′ prediction. So she was using not only the starting point of an extreme apocalypse, but adding to the apocalypse dramatically, since she believes her audience deeply gullible.

The study calls for changes at every level of government. Right now, climate scientists and transportation professionals don’t even talk to each other, says Louisa Paiwonsky, who co-authored the report.

“We take a look at traffic forecasts and land-use changes and population. I don’t think any state has formally incorporated climate change into its thinking,” Paiwonsky says. “That needs to change.”

The study says climate scientists can increasingly zero in on what will happen locally.

The federal government has just completed its first major regional study of climate and transportation. It picked 48 counties along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Alabama. Virginia Burkett, who co-authored the report, says much of this region is sinking, so sea level will rise faster along the Gulf than elsewhere.

This is surreal. NPR promotes a bogus assertion by climatologists – that they can ‘zero in on local’ future weather, And IANVS regurgitates is here as if it were a serious study.

The authoress of the study specifically repeated the AGW lie about storm intensity and frequency increasing. NPR is to much of a profiteer off of AGW fear mongering to ask any critical questions at all.

Expect more tussles over climate cost-benefit analysis ahead, says Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress. He argues that most cost-benefit studies of global warming solutions will overestimate the costs and underestimate the benefits, because they are incapable of seeing the dynamic technological progress that inevitably will occur in the future. “These studies base their cost assumptions on existing technologies and practices, which means that they do not account for the vast potential for innovation once binding reductions and deadlines are set,” he says.

Once the nation begins tackling the global warming problem in earnest, it’s a good bet that there will be similar innovations that render moot the weighing of dollars and cents we are doing today.

The ‘Big Dig’ – the >$21 billion dollar boondoggle in Boston, is proof that the government does not really take AGW seriously.

Boston is a sea port and they built this monstrosity below ground, mostly below sea level.

If anyone actually believed something significant was going to happen with sea levels, they would not have built it.

AGW promoters have moved passed trying to sell the thrill of fear and into making it ‘pay’. The ‘pay’ they are after is to make you and me pay for ever more grandiose useless projects under their control.

Just like the phony connections between the California wildfires and AGW, now infrastructure upgrades are falsely linked to AGW.

AGW has eaten the environmental movement, is wrecking the food industry, damaging the environment, creating energy shortages, and is now distracting people from rational maintenance and renovation of our infrastructure.

You advocate *extreme* and *unnecessary* “Apocalyptic Global Warming” policies and the massive costs involved with them

— but have the gall to complain about **the much smaller cost** of a war it was *necessary* to undertake?

The cost of the war in the mideast is **chicken feed** compared to the cost to US taxpayers, to US business, to US jobs and to US consumers of the “Apocalyptic Global Warming” policies being advocated in the US Congress and by people like Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, the UN IPCC and the NRC!

We are talking about *trillions* in costs, with *massive negative economic impacts* on the US!

Re-engineering and re-constructing the US infrastructure as advocated by the NRC report you quoted above would, alone and without implementing any other unnecessary and extremist AGW policies, cost the US a hundred times what the war is costing!

A hundred times what the war would cost? Any calculations available? The war is estimated at 3 trillion total cost and could be more. Whether or not it was the right thing to do I’ll leave to the historians. What I do find weird is that the same people who claim that acting against global warming is to expensive have no issues with the cost of the war.

Most estimates of what it will cost to act against global warming are in the order of hundreds of millions. Not hundreds of trillions.

Solutions presented are too costly, not because of the sheer amount of money, but because they will result in our being in a worse position. Assume the AGW’s positions are spot on and the models used to support the IPCC are accurate. Significant reductions in the output of CO2 in the US and Europe will be offset by increases in production, population and standards of living in developing countries, i.e. China, India, Brazil. This means that despite spending trillions to reduce output in the west, we will still reach the CO2 ppm threshold tipping points which will lead to the AGW armegeddon predicted. It is a bit like trying to bail out a ship with a bucket rather than preparing the life rafts. AGWs like to parrot the line “we have to do something”. Well it may make you feel good to wreck the west’s economies, but if it causes us to end up in a worse position, it is not good policy.

Those denier/delay arguments are as old & worn as much of our existing infrastruture. And short-sighted, too!

We must repair & replace & expand much of our outdated & worn infrastructure anyway, so it is only prudent to accelerate and incorporate upgraded standards sufficient to withstand more frequent or stronger “acts of man” that the science tells us is most likely coming our way. Starting with inspections & evaluations & upgrades of those bridges, tunnels, highways, etc. in areas most at risk is sensible and practical.

Moreover, if we don’t invest the billions required for a more reliable infrastructure, it will cost our economy multiples more in damages and interruptions.

Redirecting the 100 billions spent warring in Iraq to improving our own infrastructure is overdue anyways.

It’s pretty clear China needs to be part of the solution. However, since the US (and Europe as well) is the key country for Chinese exports there is a fairly big stick to wave around… Of course putting a import tax on Chinese goods or forcing them to use cleaner technology is going to up the cost of goods we in the west buy.

So, as we like to point the finger at China the fact is that we are getting huge economic benefits from cheap goods from China.

These simple statements about wrecking the US economy mean very little. Creating a highly efficient and relatively clean economy that uses materials in a more sustainable way is a benefit, not a disadvantage. Creating an economy where people don’t have to commute 2 hours each way on a parking lot like the I10 is going to make people feel a lot better.

But then the doom sayers of the right keep wanting us to believe that the world will end if we move away from fossil fuels.. funny.

IANVS, you made my point. We should not waste resources on a course of action that will not have desired results. We don’t want to find ourselves facing bad climate change effects having wasted our resources on a fix that we know won’t work. So as you say, we should not bail the water but find the life jacket and prepare the boats. But in a way that leaves us better off. Instead of just slowing production of goods, spend the resources on improving water quality, increasing food production per acre and better sun tanning products.

Mark, taxing goods is just another way of slowing down consumption isn’t it? Not sure politically that the world is going to slow down its economic growth over this issue. Look how freaked out people are over the current state of the economy. The first politician that intentionally slows the economy for the sake of AGW is a dinosaur. More efficient energy production is all well and good and sounds like a nice idea to reduce carbon, but doesn’t it assume that we will all hold our rate of consumption at a constant. In other words, if efficiency goes up, cost of energy goes down and cost of goods go down. My guess is that we Americans will use the extra resources to raise our standards of living and rate of consumption. Isn’t that what we’ve always done? Increased efficiency = increased consumption. I suppose you might argue we should curb consumption with ever increasing taxes, but politically I don’t see that happening.

I’m not an expert in these things and certainly don’t think I’m always right. Just trying to throw out some observations. I believe the energy markets will fix our oil problem. The tech is out there in the form of Nukes, wind and hydro to get off oil, but it won’t happen until oil is cost prohibitive. Same reason we don’t hunt whales to light our lamps anymore. Whales got pricey and oil got cheap.

“Isn’t that what we’ve always done? Increased efficiency = increased consumption. I suppose you might argue we should curb consumption with ever increasing taxes, but politically I don’t see that happening.”

The cat is out of the bag now on the cost of the “Climate Change” policies being advocated by the Apocalyptic Global warming alarmists in the Congress, the media, and the environmental movement.

America’s premier business groups, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation have released this 50-state report on the devastating impacts Lieberman-Warner will have on Future Energy Costs, Economic Growth, Employment, Production, Household Income and Low Income Earners.

” The conclusions of the reports indicate that the legislation, if passed into law, would have a profound economic impact on U.S. businesses, consumers and governments nationally and in all 50 states.

A sampling of the national findings includes:

— Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of $151 billion to $210 billion in 2020 and $631 billion to $669 billion per year in 2030

— Employment losses of 1.2 million to 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and 3 million to 4 million jobs in 2030

— Household income losses of $739 to $2,927 per year in 2020 and $4,022 to $6,752 per year in 2030

— Electricity price increases of 28% to 33% by 2020 and 101% to 129% by 2030

— Gasoline price increases (per gallon) of 20% to 69% by 2020 and 77% to 145% by 2030

” “This is a sobering report in view of the economic and social costs of action with respect to this legislation,” said John Engler, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers. “The goal of this study was to provide policymakers and the public a better understanding of the costs such public policies would impose on our national and state economies, as well as the direct implications for U.S. businesses and households.”

” “While the environmental impact of climate change is still under scientific analysis, the economic implications of the proposed legislation are quite evident in view of this report,” said Dr. Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist of the American Council on Capital Formation. “Policymakers would be wise to weigh the enormous costs of the proposed measures in view of any expected environmental benefits.” ”

Let’s face it, climate science might get a tough deal because of its unknowns but when it comes to economics we can really let fly! I’m sure both of us could find reports on the internet describing the opposite result of investment in the economy.

Anyway, a cost of a few hundred billion a year by 2020 when the economy is way bigger than it is now is not much at all. The war in Iraq costs at least 10 – 20 bn per month. So, we can afford that but not tackling climate change?

I also wonder how many jobs the US is going to lose if you let Japan, China and Europe develop those new technologies and you end up importing them…

Gas prices up? Fine, gas should be way more expensive than it is. Cars sold in Europe with a 2l engine are sold in the US with a 4l engine simply because people like the idea of a big engine. That’s a waste and simply stupid. An SUV will drive with a smaller engine as well.

Electricity more expensive? Time to build more effcient homes and offices.

Look more closely & you’ll see “XOM” tatooed all over that cat’s fat kazoo!

The ACCF is one of the leading oil-industry-funded denier/delayer groups, funded by (surprise?) ExxonMobil.

The “new” study by The National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation on the Lieberman-Warner Climate bill is just a rehashing of the analyses of the Clean Air Act sulfur trading program that were proven wrong by reality, which is to say by the ingenuity and technology of entrepreneurs.

As for the NAM/ACCF study, it is strictly garbage in garbage out… Energy efficiency? Fuggeddaboutit.

The fact that we get such spin from ACCF is no surprise given that they are one of the major groups funded by industry to spread confusion and disinformation on global warming. ExxonMobil is probably the major funder of deniers/delayer-1000s in this country, and ACCF received its biggest grant in 2005, so they must be doing something to make their funders happy…. So no big mystery why they put out such crap. The only mystery is why anyone would believe their conclusions.

“An SUV will drive with a smaller engine as well.” is a milestone of Flatland USA.

I’ve owned SUVs with smaller engines, and, while they will get you to pt. B, they huff & puff up those endless California inclines, and that’s without the whole crew or the Coleman Camper. In fact, it was the reason my next two had bigger engines, in spite of $2 a gal.

And, no, we don’t offroad.

That said, and with 87 octane @ 3.59/gal, it’s past time to see an SUV hybrid in the driveway.

Why is it that when people disagree with you on economics you also have to accuse them of being wrong elsewhere? We figured out a long time ago I am not a fanatic on the science of global warming. It is possible for people to disagree on some things and agree on others.

I read that report already tyler. I find it amazing that you accept it completely because you agree with it. Economics is not an exact science. For someone who ridicules much of climate science because it uses models the complete acceptance as truth of a report on economics is puzzling.

I am not calling into question the expertise of these people but I am saying that the economic impacts of both global warming and the economic impacts of any action we take are uncertain.

I would also like to point out that things do not have to be apocalyptic to be costly. If rainfall becomes more intense, like we have seen here in the UK than that leads to mud slides blocking railways. Not apocalyptic but costly indeed for businesses and the economy as a whole.

So we will have to make some judgments as to what we will do in adaptation and in reducing fossil fuel use.

The fact is that energy is too cheap in most places and that is why we use without thinking about it. If that changes than that is a good thing.

Now, about that war cost. 120bn to 240 bn per year to an estimated total cost of up to 3 trillion (depending on what is included). You on the White House lawn yet with your protest signs?

That is 200bn today tyler. Not 200bn in 12 years when the economy will be bigger than it is today.

And like I said, those gas prices are too low anyway. Maybe buy a smaller car.

These studies base their cost assumptions on existing technologies and practices, which means that they do not account for the vast potential for innovation once binding reductions and deadlines are set. The Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act anticipates the need for innovation and creates economic incentives to spur engineers and managers to devise technologies and methods to meet the greenhouse gas reduction requirements more cheaply.

This isn’t the first time that pollution control studies have produced inaccurate predictions about the future. Remember what analysts predicted about acid rain controls from 1989 to 1990?

Higher energy prices would have ripple impacts on prices throughout the economy and would impose a financial cost on households.

Texas would see disposable household income reduced by $1,044 to $3,384 per year by 2020 and $4,395 to $8,015 by 2030 (Figure 3).

L/W’s Impact on Energy Prices

Most energy prices would rise under L/W, particularly coal, oil, and natural gas. The price of gasoline in Texas would increase between 76% and 147% by 2030, while electricity prices would increase by 101% to 145%.

Impact on Economic Growth

High energy prices, fewer jobs, and loss of industrial output are estimated to reduce Texas’ gross state product (GSP) by between $12 and $16.6 billion per year by 2020 and $44.2 and $52.2 billion by 2030 (Figure 4).

Impact on Industry

Texas’ major economic sectors will be affected by emission caps (Figure 5.4)

The current two largest sectors, chemical manufacturing and computer and electronic product manufacturing, show decreases in output of 1.9% to 2.0% and 1.5% to 1.9%, respectively in 2020.

All manufacturing sectors will suffer output losses of between 2.6% and 4.2% by 2020, while output from energy intensive sectors fall between 2.2% and 4.3%.

…

These losses would be significantly higher by 2030 and would have a lasting impact on Texas’ economic base.

You probably complained that SO2 scrubbers would bankrupt the economy, too.

Or have you forgotten those mistaken predictions?

The acid rain title of the Clean Air Act of 1990 was the first and largest U.S. cap-and-trade pollution control program. Similarly to the current and upcoming studies on the Lieberman Warner bill, research on the Clean Air Act relied on flawed methodology that assumed no changes in operations or technology to meet the new requirements.

Credible predictions about the high cost of acid rain controls were eventually proven wrong, but they were used as an excuse to block reasonable compromise solutions of the problem. Opponents of global warming solutions will likely repeat this strategy with the Lieberman Warner bill.

Studies from the EPA and other “impartial” entities also predicted significant economic costs. In 1989, the EPA hired the firm ICF to calculate the expected compliance cost of an acid rain program. It predicted that the “annual cost of the program was expected to be $2.7 billion – 4.0 billion.” Yet an EPA analysis a decade later determined that the actual cost of cutting sulfur emissions by 40 percent was substantially lower–”$1 to $2 billion per year, just one quarter of original EPA estimates.”

Like the Lieberman Warner bill, the acid rain program allowed emissions trading, or cap and trade, to meet overall pollution reduction goals. During the congressional debate over acid rain controls in 1990, the EPA estimated that each allowance to emit a ton of sulfur would cost $750 during the first phase of the program. The actual prices began at $250-$300 in 1992, and eventually fell to $70 in 1996–one tenth of the predicted cost.Global Warming Solution Studies Will Overestimate Costs, Underestimate Benefits

And with your downplay of the humongous costs of the Iraq War, I must confess that I’m beginning to doubt your Libertarian credentials. If you were truly an angry taxpayer, you’d be ranting about our ‘Three Trillion Dollar War’, like your buddy Ron Paul.

High energy prices, fewer jobs, and loss of industrial output are estimated to reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by between $151 billion and $210 billion per year by 2020 and $631 billion and $669 billion by 2030 (Figure 4).

…

Impact on Jobs

Under L/W, the United States would lose between 1.2 and 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and between 3 and 4 million jobs in 2030.

Higher energy prices would have ripple impacts on prices throughout the economy and would impose a financial cost of $739 to $2,927 per year by 2020 on national households, rising to $4,022 to $6,752 by 2030 (Figure 3).

L/W’s Impact on Energy Prices

Most energy prices would rise under L/W, particularly, coal, oil, and natural gas.

The price of gasoline would increase between 60% and 144% by 2030, while electricity prices would increase by 77% to 129%.

Impact on Industry

Some major economic sectors will be adversely hit by emission caps (Figure 5). By 2020, primary metals output would be reduced by between 15% and 19%; stone, glass, and clay products would be reduced by between 10% and 12%; motor vehicle manufacturing would be reduced by between 6% and 14%; and paper products would be reduced by between 5% and 7%.

…

These losses would be significantly higher by 2030 and would have a lasting impact on the economic base of the US.”

High energy prices, fewer jobs, and loss of industrial output are estimated to US reduce California’s gross state product(GSP) by

— between $20 and $27.7 billion per year by 2020

— and $73.6 and $86.9 billion by 2030 (Figure 4).

Impact on Industry

California’s major economic sectors will be affected by emission caps (Figure 5).

The current two largest sectors, chemical manufacturing and computer and electronic product manufacturing, show decreases in output of 5.9% to 6.6% and 2.0% to 1.6%, respectively in 2020.

All manufacturing sectors will suffer output losses of between 2.5% and 4.1% by 2020

— while output from energy intensive sectors fall between 9.1% and 12.8%.

These losses would be significantly higher by 2030 and would have a lasting impact on California’s economic base.

Emphasis on non-fossil fuel generation in California would result in a 6.2% to 13.1% increase in electricity generation (Figure 6).

Impact on Jobs

Under L/W, California would lose 129,982 to 195,528 jobs in 2020 and 337,863 to 449,745 jobs in 2030 (Figure 2).

The primary cause of job losses would be lower industrial output due to higher energy prices, the high cost of complying with required emissions cuts, and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs.

Decrease in Disposable Household Income

Higher energy prices would have ripple impacts on prices throughout the economy and would impose a financial cost on households.

California would see disposable household income reduced by $1,244 to $4,032 per year by 2020 and $5,163 to $9,414 by 2030 (Figure 3).

This report examines the costs of inaction – the worsening damages that will result from allowing climate change to continue unabated. Economic models have estimated damages as great as US$74 trillion, but even these numbers fail to convey the multiple harms that lie in store for the world. In brief, we find that the first 2° of warming will have many harmful and costly impacts, outweighing the modest potential benefits, for northern countries such as the United Kingdom. Most developing countries will fare even worse, experiencing greater costs and no benefits at all. The first stages of warming already have begun to put essential ecosystems at risk, and will strain the ability of the world’s economies and governments to respond.

A recent study for the European Commission estimates that the cost of climate change could be as high as US$74 trillion (Watkiss et al. 2005). As explained later in this report, even $74 trillion may be an underestimate of the enormous but uncertain costs.

ttyler5 are you realy Libertarian? I knew there was something “matter of fact” about your comments.

Also, guys, given the collapse of the $$$ please refer comments in Euro. $1 trillion US will buy you a loaf of bread tomorrow, a mole of dollars, however, will buy you peantus to make peanut butter for your bread while waiting in the soup line.

As predicted, since NOAA reported the fact that global temperatures this winter have fallen, AGW promoters are countering with more predictions of doom, at ever more hysterical levels. Insread of dealing with the climate, which in reality AGW never has, AGW now depends on selling more and more predictions and models that are predicated on infantile acceptance of the underlying assertions of AGW itself. It is taking on the other aspect of faith-based belief: self-referential thinking.

” AGW promoters are countering with more predictions of doom, at ever more hysterical levels…. infantile acceptance of the underlying assertions of AGW ….”

Yes, and the Scientific Realists do not seem to be speaking up in public!

They are allowing the process you are describing above — which is mainly driven by the news media, the political hacks, the vested interests who stand to profit, and the “Apocalyptainment” industry — to **lead** the public policy debate about how to handle this risk!

The Apocalyptic foolishness on which such Congressional proposals as the Lieberman-Warner legislation will soon become transparent to the vast majority of the public.

And when it does it will greatly harm public trust in Climate Science.

The scientific realists are speaking all the time but with a media mostly interested in doom and gloom stories it isn’t easy to make your story.

Today’s soundbite media is ideal for quick statements and not for patient explanation of complex issues.

So what we get is the world is ending. Depending on which side is doing the talking the end of the world is either through global warming or nigher taxes. In both cases the issues are slighly more complex…

The scientific realists are speaking all the time but with a media mostly interested in doom and gloom stories it isn’t easy to make your story.

That’s a perceptive comment. The global warming story has been around for decades now, and especially so for the last three years. In some sense, it’s old news. Headlines like “The world is still warming,” aren’t the kind of thing that are going to sell newspapers or drive Web clicks. So it either becomes doom-and-gloom (which does gather attention) or a situation in which there’s less coverage.

It would still be advertising-based, though the ad market is shifting its dollars into online and mobile advertising and old fashioned TV and print are dropping in ad revenue share. A hybrid of TV/Web/Mobile/Cell is emerging and this is where the ad revenue action is, this is the growth sector.

What we are talking about in terms of launching a “counter-media” is a radical change in the *product*, for which change there is a gigantic latent as well as an already huge vocal demand.

But our current news media just flat-out refuses to fill it! Our current news media is just *weird*. “Consumer Trust” is the basic principle of practically all other marketing. But the current news media organizations have approval ratings lower than even the US Congress and attorneys! They are almost universally distrusted! And as such they are completely vulnerable!

The first venue that goes after the market for quality, objectivity and trust will capture a huge market share and set the new standard. And for a time, as the first, they will market themselves as and be looked on as innovators and rebels — as a counter-media.